Gurthang, The Talking sword of Turin Turamber

Gurthang,, "Death Iron" was the name given by Turin to the black sword formely known as Anglachel. the black sword had formely belonged to Beleg Cuthalion, but in Turins hand the sword had taken Belegs life.
Having just been reading the Sil again, a thought came to me, when Turin realises that he is cursed, he wishes to die, and he speaks to Gurthang, and Gurthang replies, now i know it says in the book :

Quote:

---

And from the blade rang a cold voice in answer,"yea i will drink thy blood, that I may forget the blood of Beleg my master, and the blood of Brandir slain unjustly. I will slay thee swiftly"

---

Yet I wonder was it really the sword speaking, or was Turin in such a state of anguish that he wanted his life to end, but felt that to take his own life was wrong, but if the sword took his life, he was not to blame. Another thing was the voice of the sword that Turin heard, actually the sword speaking, was it possibly the voice of Eorl or maybe even Morgoth, that spoke.

Well, I don't see why Eorl or Morgoth would call Beleg his master, especially Eorl who did not yet exist! The sword actually spoke, in my opinion. (Cf. the troll's purse in The Hobbit.)

Sorry typo, I meant Eol, the dark elf, he forged Anglachel the black sword from meteroic iron.

I'm pretty sure Gurthang spoke,because it was a sentient sword. I think even Tolkien said that it was sentient in one of his letters. Could someone provide a quote?

No I don't have a quote, sorry, but I also believe that it was the sword that spoke, not Morgoth or Eol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turin

No I don't have a quote, sorry, but I also believe that it was the sword that spoke, not Morgoth or Eol.

---

I'm quite sure that the sword spoke. After all, a purse spoke in The Hobbit.

P. S. There is no quote. Turin is only mentioned once in the entirety of the Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien and only fleetingly.

Cheers,

grond

I wish to believe it was the sword itself that spoke.

Take that from it and it looses its mythical existence that makes it so special.

Um no I'm pretty sure it's the sword itself; Tolkien's universe has many such instances where non-humanoid or non-biological entities use voice (Huan, Glaurung, Gurthang, Gwaihir etc.), it's a powerful symbolic and litereary effect. It's really a central effect used by Tolkien to create a mythical or legendary atmosphere in his works.
Although you may have a point about Túrin's anguish, I don't think you should read too much psychological metaphors into Tolkien's work as he hated allegory.. ;)

Actually, I don't think Gurthang was able to speak. In Tolkiens Mythology there is magic, that's true, but there aren't any beings strong enough to give reason to a thing.
I mean, when Aule created the dwarves, he was able to fashion bnodies that could move and speak on his demand. But they could not act independently. They had no reason.
So how could Ëol, an Elf, create a lifeless thing with an own will? He was not nearly as skilled as Aulë. Why should he manage to do something not even a Valar may achieve?

I think it was just Túrins insanity that made him hear the words of the sword. It was his wish to hear an affirmation of the sword that made him hear it. He wanted someone or something to agree with him on his suicide. And because no one else was there, Gurthang spoke to him. But a man, almost killed by the blood of a dragon, scarceley awakened from consiouslessness and noticing the death of his sister might well have some hallucinations.
Thogh this interpretation denies a lot of the magic and the romantic of this scene, I am aware of that. But that's the way I see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tarlanc

Actually, I don't think Gurthang was able to speak. In Tolkiens Mythology there is magic, that's true, but there aren't any beings strong enough to give reason to a thing.
I mean, when Aule created the dwarves, he was able to fashion bnodies that could move and speak on his demand. But they could not act independently. They had no reason.
So how could Ëol, an Elf, create a lifeless thing with an own will? He was not nearly as skilled as Aulë. Why should he manage to do something not even a Valar may achieve?

I think it was just Túrins insanity that made him hear the words of the sword. It was his wish to hear an affirmation of the sword that made him hear it. He wanted someone or something to agree with him on his suicide. And because no one else was there, Gurthang spoke to him. But a man, almost killed by the blood of a dragon, scarceley awakened from consiouslessness and noticing the death of his sister might well have some hallucinations.
Thogh this interpretation denies a lot of the magic and the romantic of this scene, I am aware of that. But that's the way I see it.

---

Your "self-described", lifeless thing was actually made of an un-earthly metal which fell from the sky. We know not whence it came or what "un-earthly" attributes it may have had. By stating that the sword didn't speak, you disclaim much of Tolkien's mythology that is already considered canon. (ie. speaking Dogs, werewolves, et. al... not to mention my aforementioned reference to the purse that gave Bilbo away in the Hobbit.) The way you "see" it is certainly now the way Tolkien planned for you to read it. Check out the Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien from your local library and read it and you'll see where most of us are coming from.

The purse in the Hobbit may also be an exception. You have to keep in mind that the Hobbit was not actually a part of Tolkiens Mythology (as outlined then in the Lost Tales) until he made the connection to his Mythology with the LotR.
Hobbits, Stone Giants, Smaug (a self consciuos Dragon af flesh and bone), Bëorn, the enchanted deer and the trolls that turned to stone were actually never really explained in Tolkiens later works on his Mythology. They are part of a children story which has not that much to do with Arda.
At the time he wrote the Hobbit, there weren't any places like Mirkwood, the Shire, Rivendell... or figures like Wizards, Wargs or Goblins mentioned in his Lost Tales or the earliest Draft of the Quenta Silmarillion. He may have made them fit afterwards, but he did not succed to do tihs with every new item. And the talking pusre may just be one of the things he never was able to explain in terms if the Silmarillion.

As Tolkien puts forth in 'Myths Transformed', an essay publishd in HoME10, (which I for myself regard as more consistent and more refined than the several notices drwan from the lessters by eager readers), no one was able to put a soul to a thing (be it lifeless or an animal) but Eru himself. Only Eru had the power to give a fea to somehting.
This is illustrated by his late images of the Orcs (mindless animals with the will of their master leading them, reeling off speeches long ago recorded by Sauron or Morgoth), Huan and the Eagles (Animals given a limited ability to speak what their masters wanted them to say) and so forth.
Never has anyone but Eru been able to put reason to a thing. And Eru gave reason alone to the Elves, Men, Dwarves and eventually Ents.

And According to 'Myths transformed' it is absoultely unthinkable that Ëol, an Elf, was able to give his sword reason. Unless he captured an Ainur in the shape of this sword. For Ainur, of course, were gifted with reason and could take on the form af any being. Be it a Werewolf, a giant spider or something else.

Tarlanc: You seem to be of the opinion that reason and speech are completely unconnected; that a talking sword is fine, unless it has a mind. But the fact is that speech is not possible without a mind. Orcs certainly had minds, that is unbdisputable, as they were mockeries of Men (or of Elves, whichever one you prefer ;)) and had all the biological traits of humanoids; their minds were not identical to those of Men or Elves, they had been corrupted by Melkor from the beginning; but that does not mean they did not possess minds and thus the ability for both speech and free will. Their 'free will' was only affected by their inherent lust for destruction and evil.
And you cannot say that the fact that Anglachel was forged from a 'fallen star', i.e. meteorite, and the fact that it had the apparent capacity for thought and self-awareness (because speaking was not the only feat that this sword accomplished) do not coincide or have anything to do with one another. Only two blades were forged from that celestial metal, Anglachel and Anguirel; and part of the reason that Anglachel could speak was, IMO, linked to Melkor's curse of the House of Húrin, the wiles of Glaurung and Túrin's bitterness. I might even put forth that the metal which Gurthang was made of had the ability to amplify and/or incarnate or manifest feelings and spiritual traits.
So in this sense you have a point, and it is an interesting observation on its own as well, that Túrin's guilt and woe were a part of the words which Gurthang spoke to him. But I am 100% against your claim that Glaurung did not have a mind and did not have capacity for independent thought, at least in light of all that I know now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tarlanc

The purse in the Hobbit may also be an exception. You have to keep in mind that the Hobbit was not actually a part of Tolkiens Mythology (as outlined then in the Lost Tales) until he made the connection to his Mythology with the LotR.
Hobbits, Stone Giants, Smaug (a self consciuos Dragon af flesh and bone), Bëorn, the enchanted deer and the trolls that turned to stone were actually never really explained in Tolkiens later works on his Mythology. They are part of a children story which has not that much to do with Arda.
At the time he wrote the Hobbit, there weren't any places like Mirkwood, the Shire, Rivendell... or figures like Wizards, Wargs or Goblins mentioned in his Lost Tales or the earliest Draft of the Quenta Silmarillion. He may have made them fit afterwards, but he did not succed to do tihs with every new item. And the talking pusre may just be one of the things he never was able to explain in terms if the Silmarillion.

As Tolkien puts forth in 'Myths Transformed', an essay publishd in HoME10, (which I for myself regard as more consistent and more refined than the several notices drwan from the lessters by eager readers), no one was able to put a soul to a thing (be it lifeless or an animal) but Eru himself. Only Eru had the power to give a fea to somehting.
This is illustrated by his late images of the Orcs (mindless animals with the will of their master leading them, reeling off speeches long ago recorded by Sauron or Morgoth), Huan and the Eagles (Animals given a limited ability to speak what their masters wanted them to say) and so forth.
Never has anyone but Eru been able to put reason to a thing. And Eru gave reason alone to the Elves, Men, Dwarves and eventually Ents.

And According to 'Myths transformed' it is absoultely unthinkable that Ëol, an Elf, was able to give his sword reason. Unless he captured an Ainur in the shape of this sword. For Ainur, of course, were gifted with reason and could take on the form af any being. Be it a Werewolf, a giant spider or something else.

---

And the commentary on Fea and Hroar was directed at Middle-earthly spirits and not with unearthly spirits. I do not for one second believe the Sword had a hroar and it wasn't necessary that it have a fea either. It could have simply been an unclothed Ainur/Maiair who chose to reside (or was taking a ride) on the meteorite when it came to earth. I don't know. But I also think that it would be totally "un-Tolkien like" for him to have meant for Gurthang's statement to be something other than that which it was protrayed. For him to expect the reader to "understand" the theory you have put forth would have been "allegorical"... something Tolkien dispised. The following quote is from the Grey Annals of HoME XI and were completed in the early 1950's.

Quote:

---

from HoME XI, War of the Jewels, The Grey Annals,"
§346 Then he fled from them like the wind, and they were amazed, wondering what madness had seized him; and they followed after him. But Túrin far out-ran them, and came to Cabad-en-Aras, and heard the roaring of the water, and saw that all the leaves fell sere from the trees, as though winter had come. Then he cursed the place and named it Cabad Naeramarth, and he drew forth his sword, that now alone remained to him of all his possessions, and he said: 'Hail Gurthang! No lord or loyalty dost thou know, save the hand that wieldeth thee. From no blood wilt thou shrink. Wilt thou therefore take Túrin Turambar, wilt thou slay me swiftly?'
§347 And from the blade rang a cold voice in answer: 'Yea, I will drink thy blood gladly, that so I may forget the blood of Beleg my master, and the blood of Brandir slain unjustly. I will slay thee swiftly.'
§348 Then Túrin set the hilts upon the ground, and cast himself upon the point of Gurthang, and the black blade took his life. But Mablung and the Elves came and looked on the shape of the Worm lying dead, and upon the body of Túrin, and they were grieved; and when men of Brethil came thither, and they learned the reasons of Túrin's madness and death, they were aghast; and Mablung said bitterly: 'Lo! I also have been meshed in the doom of the Children of Húrin, and thus with my tidings have slain one that I loved.'
§349 Then they lifted up Túrin and found that Gurthang had broken asunder. But Elves and Men gathered then great store of wood and made a mighty burning, and the Worm was consumed to ashes...

---

As you can see, this is pretty much verbatim from the Silmarillion and conveys to me a clear and concise thought with no hint of allegory. The blade spoke!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grond

It could have simply been an unclothed Ainur/Maiair who chose to reside (or was taking a ride) on the meteorite when it came to earth. I don't know. But I also think that it would be totally "un-Tolkien like" for him to have meant for Gurthang's statement to be something other than that which it was protrayed.

---

If ist was an Ainu residing in the blade, then I absolutely agree with you that the blade may have spoken. Be it that the Ainu was in the meteorite or later captured by Ëol in the blade.

But without a fea inside the Sword could not have possibly been able to speak. And Ëol just did not have the power to give a fea to a thing.

As for the connection of speech and reason: In Tolkiens Mythology it was perfectly possible for something to reel off some recorded speech without having a fea. In late conceptions the Orcs were nothing but mindless animals which spoke what Melkor or Sauron made them say. They had neither a free will nor the ability to think. This conception goes IMO back on the fact that the heroes of Tolkiens World slaughtered Orcs for sport. They had no respect of the life of Orcs. For a Christian it was probably unconfortable to have heroes slaughtering feeling people. So the Orcs were degraded to animals. Beings not able to decide whether they wanted to be good or bad. This legitimated the slaughtering.

Even Anglachel might have reeled off some words. But it could never have told Túrin of his deeds and felt pleasure in killing him without a fea. That's my point.

Computer programs have been created that can engage in seemingly intelligent dialogue with a human being without there being any spirit involved. Orcs might be conceived as doing the same.

While Orcs and animals may not, in Tolkien's metaphysics, have indwelling fëar, but they have something about them that makes them live and allows them to act and react and to understand some speech of humans even though physically incapable of reproducing it. Whatever that might be called might also made part of a normally inanimate object in a fantasy.

Objects do sometimes speak in old tales (with no metaphysic to explain it). Legolas in some sense hears the stones of Eregion speak:

Quote:

---

     ‘To the end of the journey – in the end,’ said Gandalf. ‘We cannot look too far ahead. Let us be glad that the first stage is safely over. I think we will rest here, not only today but tonight as well. There is a wholesome air about Hollin. Much evil must befall a country before it wholly forgets the Elves, if once they dwelt there.’
    ‘That is true,’ said Legolas. ‘But the Elves of this land were of a race strange to us of the silvan folk, and the trees and the grass do not now remember them: Only I hear the stones lament them: deep they delved us, fair they wrought us, high they builded us; but they are gone. They are gone. They sought the Havens long ago.’

---

Gandalf speaks of the country not forgetting the Elves and Legolas then speaks in a way that indicates this is not just a metaphor.

In a fantasy all things many tend to be more alive than in reality. That a troll’s wallet speaks is the same kind of thing.

That The Hobbit was written as a children’s story does not in itself discredit any of its details. Glaurung in the story of the Children of Húrin is just as self-conscious and just as able to speak as is Smaug in the Hobbit. Beren and Lúthien, with the aid of enchanted pelts, can change their shapes just as Beorn does. Finrod by illusion gives the appearance of Orcs to Beren and himself and the accompanying Elves. Stone-giants are no more improbable than stone-trolls or Ents or Huorns.

The One Ring has a will and speaks but certainly contains neither fëa or ëala. But there is an appearance of spirit of some kind in it.

In Tolkien’s original account of the death of Túrin no-one was nearby to hear either Turin’s words or the words of the sword. In the later account Mablung and a party of Elves are introduced as chasing after Túrin, probably to explain how the details of Túrin’s death were known including the speaking of the sword. Perhaps a Man would would not have heard the voice of the sword in the same fashion as only Legolas (and perhaps Gandalf) would be able to hear the lamenting of the stones. Perhaps Túrin himself did not hear it. But Mablung might hear it.

That J.R.R. Tolkien did not in published writings address the metaphysics of the speaking sword doesn’t indicate that he thought the voice imaginary. I can speculate that Túrin imagined the voice and that Túrin’s spirit was then in such a heightened state that Mablung and the Elves also heard it by a kind of telepathy. I don’t think Tolkien would have approved of this kind of rationalization.

One might also remember that the acount of Túrin supposedly derives from the poet Dirhavel rather than from omniscient knowledge. But I don’t see that as an excuse to remove elements of seeming fantasy from the account since Dirhavel himself lives in a world where such elements exist.